|
|
 |
|
|
Payslip (364,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Payslip
Total judgments found: 34
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5081
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to increase the employee pension contribution rate.
Consideration 5
Extract:
In light of the Tribunal’s case law, the payslips received by the complainant subsequent to the January 2008 payslip did not re-open a new time limit allowing him to challenge the decision to apply the increased pension contribution rate, as they were simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgments 4590, consideration 5, and 4121, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4121, 4590
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; failure to exhaust internal remedies; internal remedies not exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; time limit;
Judgment 5031
140th Session, 2025
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: La requérante conteste la réduction du montant de son indemnité forfaitaire de dactylographie calculée proportionnellement à la réduction de son temps de travail.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[L]a requérante se plaint du fait qu’aucune motivation ne lui aurait été communiquée lors de la transmission de son bulletin de rémunération pour le mois d’avril 2019 […]
Le Tribunal considère que, comme le fait valoir à juste titre la défenderesse, une décision de nature automatique, telle que celle de réduire le montant de l’indemnité de dactylographie proportionnellement au temps de travail réellement effectué et reconnu par l’Organisation, n’est autre, ainsi qu’il a déjà été dit, que la conséquence évidente de la mise en œuvre concrète de règles du Statut administratif. Au demeurant, ces règles, rappelées au considérant 3 ci-dessus, sont suffisamment claires. Celles-ci devaient par ailleurs être connues au préalable par l’intéressée (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4696, au considérant 10, 4242, au considérant 6, et 4166, au considérant 4). Il n’y avait donc pas lieu d’exiger de la part d’Eurocontrol une motivation formelle plus étendue que celle qui figurait sur les bulletins de rémunération qui lui avaient été transmis à partir du mois d’avril 2019. […] À supposer même que la requérante ait pu avoir le moindre doute à ce sujet, il lui était donc loisible de prendre connaissance des dispositions pertinentes en la matière et, le cas échéant, de demander, en temps utile, des informations complémentaires à ce sujet (voir, dans le même sens, le jugement 4591, au considérant 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4166, 4242, 4591, 4696
Keywords:
duty to know the rules; motivation; payslip;
Judgment 4921
139th Session, 2025
European Southern Observatory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ESO’s decision not to apply the ceilings defined in its Staff Rules and Regulations to the cost-of-living differential of the monthly household and children’s allowances paid to him.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Inasmuch as, in his internal appeal, the complainant only contested his December 2019 and January 2020 payslips and only asked for a revision of the calculation made in them, this complaint is irreceivable pursuant to Article VII, paragraph 1, of of the Statute of the Tribunal, to the extent that he requests the Tribunal to order ESO to annul all subsequent payslips in which the contested decision was implemented.
Keywords:
iloat statute; internal remedies not exhausted; payslip; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4898
138th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the abolition of the permanent invalidity lump sum.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
acquired right; complaint dismissed; general decision; invalidity; payslip;
Judgment 4816
138th Session, 2024
South Centre
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the calculation of the compensation for the short notice, due by the South Centre, after the non-renewal of his short-term appointment as well as the calculation of his last salary.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; case sent back to organisation; compensation; competence; complaint allowed; decision quashed; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
Before the Tribunal, the South Centre repeats its contention that the complainant’s internal appeal was irreceivable, premised mainly on its submission that the notification of intention to appeal was filed out of time and was accordingly time-barred. On the other hand, the complainant states, in his complaint, that by his internal appeal he challenged the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip dated 18 December 2020 and that the Tribunal has accepted that a payslip could be considered as a challengeable decision (see, for example, consideration 2 of Judgment 3833). The complainant states that his internal appeal was filed against the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice within one month of receipt of his last salary and the emails of December 2020 explaining the organisation’s calculation. However, whether or not the complainant had challenged the non-renewal of his contract, as the defendant contends, the calculation and the amount of “indemnities” he received with his last payslip, or the shortfall of his last salary and the compensation for the short notice are matters which were to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body, which should have been established pursuant to Staff Regulation 11.2.
Regarding appeals, Staff Regulation 11.2 relevantly states that an ad hoc Appellate Body shall be established by the Board according to the criteria and procedures set out in Annex VII to hear and adjudicate on appeals from staff members. As to the procedure for an appeal from an administrative decision, Annex VII.B. requires a staff member wishing to appeal an administrative decision to notify the Board, through the Chairperson, of intent to appeal within one month of the date of receiving notification of the decision in writing. Within one month of receipt of the staff member’s notice of intent to appeal, the Chairperson of the Board is to refer the appeal to an ad hoc Appellate Body, consisting of three of its members, one of whom shall act as Chairperson. The ad hoc Appellate Body shall then receive the staff member’s written appeal, and a written reply thereto by the Chairperson of the Board. The Appellate Body may also hear further observations on, or rebuttals to, the initial written submissions, orally or in writing. It may also call for oral testimony from the parties or witnesses, including from members of the Secretariat, and for supporting documentation. Under Annex VII.C., a decision of the ad hoc Appellate Body may be brought for review to the Tribunal. The expression “appeal” in Annex VII.B is a reference to an appeal whether it is receivable or not. The obligation of the Chairperson is therefore to refer to the ad hoc Appellate Body a matter even if it is arguably not a receivable appeal. Moreover, there is no express provision in the Annex conferring power on the Chairperson to reject an appeal if it is irreceivable.
It is obvious from the foregoing provisions that the Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Board erred by responding to the notification of intention to appeal in the way they did, given that they were not empowered to do so under the rules governing appeals. The notification of intention to appeal was to be considered by an ad hoc Appellate Body which should have been constituted for that purpose and the Chairperson of the Board was required to refer the notification of intention to appeal to that body. As this did not occur, the complainant was denied the benefit and possibility of having the decision he challenged effectively reviewed by the competent internal appeal body, which was his right (see, for example, Judgments 4620, consideration 5, and 3067, consideration 20).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3067, 3833, 4620
Keywords:
administrative decision; competence; internal appeal; internal appeals body; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal; safeguard;
Judgment 4803
137th Session, 2024
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests amendments made to the procedure for adjusting remuneration as reflected in his payslips.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
competence of tribunal; complaint dismissed; payslip; salary;
Judgment 4591
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the reduction in the amount of his functional allowance calculated in proportion to the reduction in his working hours.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The complainant also complains that no explanation was provided to him with his payslip [...].
The Tribunal considers, however, [...] that an automatic decision, such as that to reduce the amount of an [...] allowance, is simply the consequence of putting into practice the change in the complainant’s working hours to which he had agreed and that the applicable rules are sufficiently clear. There is therefore no requirement for the Organisation to provide a more detailed formal explanation than that which appeared on the payslip sent to the complainant [...]. By reading that payslip, the complainant was able to understand that the amount of his allowance had been reduced by 20 per cent. It was therefore open to him to familiarise himself with the relevant provisions and, if necessary, to request further information in that regard.
Keywords:
motivation; motivation of final decision; payslip;
Judgment 4590
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him compensation under “the grandfathering rules” for the loss of home leave entitlements that he enjoyed before he was transferred from the World Health Organization to the Global Fund.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal […] stated that its case law concerning payslips did not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip was simply confirmatory of that decision [...].
Keywords:
late appeal; payslip;
Judgment 4479
133rd Session, 2022
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the changes made with respect to their salary resulting from the decision of the Director-General to implement the unified salary scale as adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The payslips reflect a decision to introduce a unified salary scale eliminating the distinction between staff who were single and those with dependents.
Keywords:
payslip;
Judgment 4435
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who is a former permanent employee of the European Patent Office, challenges the deductions from his remuneration that were made in respect of his absences for strike participation as well as the lawfulness of the general normative decisions on which those deductions were based.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he complainant impugns the two specific decisions to deduct amounts from his salary [...]. Those decisions were individual decisions. Accordingly and consistent with the Tribunal’s existing case law, in challenging those individual decisions the complainant can challenge the general decision upon which the individual decisions are based and, in this particular case, the application of an amended statutory rule allegedly in breach of the complainant’s right to strike (see, for example, Judgment 2089, consideration 2).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2089
Keywords:
general decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4422
132nd Session, 2021
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants are former permanent employees of the European Patent Office who challenge their January 2014 and subsequent payslips showing an increase in their pension contributions.
Consideration 5
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, a complainant may impugn a decision only if it directly affects her or him, and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied in a manner prejudicial to her or him, but she or he is not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of the general decision when impugning the implementing decision which has generated her or his cause of action (see, for example, Judgments 3291, consideration 8, and 4119, consideration 4). Accordingly, the complainants are entitled to challenge the individual decisions resulting from the increased pension contributions reflected in their subject payslips, as well as the lawfulness of general decision CA/D 10/13.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3291, 4119
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision; payslip;
Judgment 4138
128th Session, 2019
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of WIPO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from WIPO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4137
128th Session, 2019
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of the ITU to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from the ITU’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4136
128th Session, 2019
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of IOM to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from IOM’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4135
128th Session, 2019
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of WHO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from WHO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4134
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to apply to their salaries the post adjustment multiplier determined by the ICSC on the basis of its 2016 cost-of-living survey for Geneva, with the result that their salaries were reduced.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The legal foundation for the complaints is the individual decision, reflected in a payslip, to reduce the salary of each complainant and likewise affecting each intervener. In such circumstances the complainant can challenge the general decision on which the individual decision is based (see, for example, Judgment 1798, consideration 6). In the present case there is potentially a succession of several general decisions of the ICSC following a survey conducted in, amongst other places, Geneva in 2016 culminating in the Geneva-based officials in the Professional category and above being paid at a reduced amount. In addition there was the general decision of the administration of the ILO to give effect to these ICSC decisions. The last mentioned decision flowed from the ILO’s membership of and adherence to the United Nations common system.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798
Keywords:
general decision; icsc decision; individual decision; payslip;
Judgment 4121
127th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the alleged failure to implement a decision to grant him three years’ seniority.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The decision to promote the complainant was made in 2006. It was at that point in time that time-limits to challenge that decision began to run. The Tribunal’s case law concerning payslips does not entitle a complainant to belatedly challenge a decision out of time if the payslip is simply confirmatory of that decision (see, for example, Judgment 2823, consideration 10). This is what the complainant seeks to do in these proceedings. The complainant has not exhausted internal means of redress in conformity with the Service Regulations for permanent employees of the European Patent Office. Accordingly his complaint to this Tribunal is irreceivable and should be dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2823
Keywords:
confirmatory decision; individual decision; internal remedies exhausted; late appeal; new time limit; payslip; receivability of the complaint; right of appeal;
Judgment 3883
124th Session, 2017
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants contest the implementation of new salary scales as from March 2012 in Bangkok.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]t should be noted that reliance on payslips does not create an open-ended opportunity to challenge a general decision on which the payslips are based (see Judgment 3614, considerations 12 and 13).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3614
Keywords:
payslip;
Judgment 3833
124th Session, 2017
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for reclassification of her post.
Consideration 2
Extract:
[E]stablished precedent has it that pay slips are individual decisions that may be challenged before the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 1798, under 6, and 3614, under 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1798, 3614
Keywords:
administrative decision; payslip;
Judgment 3740
123rd Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the legality of changes to the FAO General Service category staff salary scale consequent to the implementation of recommendations contained in an ICSC report in 2012 on local employment conditions in Rome.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that the revised salary scale was not applied to the complainants and did not adversely and directly affect them. However, as of 1 February 2013 up to the date the secondary salary scale reached the primary salary scale applicable to the complainants, the complainants would not be paid any interim salary adjustments, that is, their salaries were frozen. Although the February paysheets therefore did not reflect any change in their salaries, nor would any change be reflected in subsequent paysheets while the freeze was in effect, at that point in time it was evident that the salary freeze was liable to cause them financial injury. As the Tribunal explained in Judgment 3168, under 9, for there to be a cause of action a complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative action caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. Accordingly, the complaints are receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168
Keywords:
cause of action; freeze of salary; payslip;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
